XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.god.timothy.sutter, talk.religion.misc   
   From: a202010@lycos.com-   
      
   alright anyway, big deal, what you need   
   someone do is describe the state of the   
   "universe" at time T = 0.   
      
   all the first second bit and physical science   
   in general cannot rightly make a clear definition   
   of the situation at time T = 0 so, you have two   
   choices in your speculative conjecture.   
      
   either you cite the existance of some substance   
   that has no known physical qualities, meaning no   
   physical qualities that may be measured and   
   therefore does not exist in the normal fashion,   
      
   or, you must cite a beginning from   
   absolute nothing, and this second   
   choice amounts to a magic.   
      
    a "something from nothing,"   
      
   that is the definition of a "magic".   
      
   but, if you make any referrence to this   
   "substance" that has no real physically   
   knowable qualities, you cite a "thing"   
   that you can have no physical reckoning of.   
      
   for all practical purposes, "science" must   
   discount the "something from nothing"   
   possibility as a "magic"   
      
   and therefore is confined to the emanation of   
   physical substances _from_ a "substance" that   
   has no knowable physical properties of its own.   
      
   and so, in referrence to absolute origins,   
   "science" is "stuck" citing a "thing"   
   that it can never recognize as "real"   
      
   but see, i got something even funnier,   
      
   you can't even demonstrate that the universe   
   by necessity came about in the manner described   
    in the "first second" manner.   
      
   this also amounts to pure conjecture.   
      
   so, what you cannot rightly disprove is   
   the proposition that all things simply   
   popped out of some such "quantum singularity"   
   fully in tact. that is, that planets and   
   suns just blurted out of this thing   
   already in tact.   
      
   which leaves you with another stange thing   
   and that is, that at time T = 0 there was   
   no physical reality, and at time T = 1 there   
   was a star that was "apparently"   
   6 billion years old.   
      
   that is, something like this,   
      
   that a "black hole" or "quantum sigularity"   
   just sort of sneezed and blew apart into   
   constituent fragmentary, atomic nature,   
   pieces that were already completely formed.   
      
   of course, we don't cite an   
   uncontrolled accident as our origin.   
      
   we cite a specifically ordained   
   manifestation of mechanical effluence.   
      
   specifically directed intelligence made it happen.   
      
   as metastability cannot be cited   
   where no mechanistic forces,   
   as yet, exist.   
      
   that is, we cannot suggest that the   
   flower pot was teetering imperceptibly   
   on the shelf, and then fell.   
      
   as, in the unity of the All, no potential   
   differences can be credibly cited.   
      
   no oppositional forcework.   
      
   only Love   
      
   whatever that is.   
      
      
      
   all you can do is say, "we've never   
   seen anything like that happen before"   
      
   but then, you've never studies a true   
   quantum singularity in any lab of yours   
   either, and in fact, you cannot.   
      
   so, basically, given that the state of   
   affairs at Time T = 0 favor uncertainty   
   and not a certainty of nothing at all,   
      
   the idea of an eternal God hanging out in   
   the "midst" of all that unknowable and not   
   ever knowable "stuff" loses me no sleep at all.   
      
   unknowable to experimental material   
   physics observation knowable to -that-   
   "stuff" whatever it may be.   
      
   what's funny about "life" -inside- of this   
   nowhere land is the apparent "sequence of events"   
   that may take place where no seconds tick   
   off of any clock.   
      
   that always struck me as entirely odd.   
      
   and the whole 'place' could be tinier than   
   the head of a pin or larger than the andromeda   
   galaxy or both simultaneously and neither   
   because there's no spacial measurement   
   possible either.   
      
   id est, there's no space, no physical   
   measuring device can comprehend it.   
      
   but yet, something "lives" 'there'.   
      
   wherever "there" 'is'   
      
   but what it -ain't- is   
   "something from nothing"   
      
   something from something   
   i can come to grips with.   
      
   but, nothing is nothing   
   and what can come of nothing?   
      
   so then, there is 'substance'   
   to that which can never be 'touched'   
      
   now nothing can confound you, any more.   
      
   or can't, as the case may be.   
      
   anyway, materialism falls under this.   
      
   simply because there's a "substance"   
   that has no knowable physical attributes.   
      
   and therefore, is not "material" in any way   
   that you could can describe based on physical   
   experimentation and observation.   
      
   therefore does not "exist" to physical discovery,   
      
   but yet, must exist.   
      
   and -only- a being with   
   conscious intent can   
   'make a tree'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)